Fisheries collapse in a pattern unlike that seen on land

In contrast to patterns seen on land, the populations of smaller species that …

Conservationists desperately want to minimize the impact of overfishing on the oceans and their inhabitants. Doing so requires defining which species are most at risk, and so far, that has not been done on a global level. In terrestrial ecosystems, large-bodied species and top predators seem to be the most susceptible to human impacts; it has been assumed that the same holds true in the water. However, a recent report in PNAS indicates that this is not the case.

Pinsky et al. analyzed two independent fisheries databases, collectively describing 578 species over 60 years, to figure out which life-history traits might correlate with population collapse. They looked at a number of traits that had previously been shown to cause vulnerability to human activity in the seas, including large body size, late maturity, long lifespan, low fecundity, high parental involvement in offspring (large egg diameters), and high trophic levels (being at the top of the food chain).

Contrary to what they expected, they found that almost twice the percentage of smaller, low trophic-level fish stocks had collapsed compared to large top predators. They could not find a correlation between collapse and any of the life history traits they examined, in any combination.

Small fish that live near the surface tend to have rapid growth rates and are highly catchable, so are particularly at risk of being overfished. They can also have a "fast" life history strategy that led people to erroneously believe they were less vulnerable to overfishing. Perhaps this disparity with the situation on land is precisely because fisheries had been targeting these smaller fish, assuming that their populations were more resilient than they actually are.

The fast growth rates and short generation times might also render these short-lived species particularly sensitive to environmental variability. There are plenty of these examples. Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) are two short-lived species with stocks that collapsed; herring (Clupea pallasii) is a small, fast growing species with a stock that collapsed. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) are other delicious species low in the food chain that also collapsed.

In his book Four Fish, Paul Greenberg laments that we have come close to depleting the oceans of edible wild fish, and will eventually limit our dining options to farmed tuna, cod, sea bass, and salmon. Hopefully, the acquisition and analysis of data on a global level such as reported here will impact fisheries management to the point where we can continue to enjoy the ocean’s bounty without completely destroying it.

I live in the middle of Illinois yet I can get most types of sea fish if they are in season. Not only does this deplete fish stocks, the packing and shipping of these fish is wasteful. I think it would be more fun if only coastal areas had specialty fish.

PMD it may be wastefull to ship them to you but the US is not the problem with fisheries. Japan, Korea, China and other SE Asian countries are all very prominent on the oceans and not terribly concerned about how much or what they harvest. They are consuming fish like we consume oil.

PMD it may be wastefull to ship them to you but the US is not the problem with fisheries. Japan, Korea, China and other SE Asian countries are all very prominent on the oceans and not terribly concerned about how much or what they harvest. They are consuming fish like we consume oil.

Imagine if they weren't consuming fish, how many people would be starving. They don't all have the kind of farmland we are lucky enough to have in the US.

I was thinking more along the lines of how fish won't be edible in the first place due to all the radiation in the water from this nuclear meltdown. We import fish from Japan but I would highly recommend not eating it..

Imagine if they weren't consuming fish, how many people would be starving.

Imagine if we don't start managing fisheries properly and fish stocks completely crash. People WILL be starving.

There are many strategies to managing the ocean fisheries, however creating large marine reserves, in essence "no catch" zones, is ultimately the only sure way of achieving sustainability. Marine Protected Areas http://www.mpa.gov/ are a good start, but we should increase the size and #'s of area with the highest protection levels.

Farming isn't really an option, unless we come up with some new, high-protein vegetable substitute for what they are feeding them now (basically, those small, fast breeding fish caught in the wild). Algae-based pellets or something might do the trick, but right now farmed fish are an ecological horror story.

I seem to remember a story about a British brewery that sold their sludge byproduct to a ragworm (I think) farm. The ragworms were particularly happy with this byproduct and grew suitably big and juicy, and were then sold onto a fish farm. That is the sort of good wholesome story I like. Finding more uses for beer.

I seem to remember a story about a British brewery that sold their sludge byproduct to a ragworm (I think) farm. The ragworms were particularly happy with this byproduct and grew suitably big and juicy, and were then sold onto a fish farm. That is the sort of good wholesome story I like. Finding more uses for beer.

I seem to remember a story about a British brewery that sold their sludge byproduct to a ragworm (I think) farm. The ragworms were particularly happy with this byproduct and grew suitably big and juicy, and were then sold onto a fish farm. That is the sort of good wholesome story I like. Finding more uses for beer

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your last statement, your post ignores how destructive fish farms are to the oceans.

More and more often, I suspect we should be looking at human population reduction, but I doubt that will ever happen either. I know there are ways we can drastically increase the human population on earth, but no one has explained to me why this is a good thing. I like to think that, if we could, over the next few decades, "naturally" (IE: without euthenasia/war/etc) reduce the population down to 50-75% of it's current levels, we could enjoy many things that are currently unsustainable.

I seem to remember a story about a British brewery that sold their sludge byproduct to a ragworm (I think) farm. The ragworms were particularly happy with this byproduct and grew suitably big and juicy, and were then sold onto a fish farm. That is the sort of good wholesome story I like. Finding more uses for beer

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your last statement, your post ignores how destructive fish farms are to the oceans.

More and more often, I suspect we should be looking at human population reduction, but I doubt that will ever happen either. I know there are ways we can drastically increase the human population on earth, but no one has explained to me why this is a good thing. I like to think that, if we could, over the next few decades, "naturally" (IE: without euthenasia/war/etc) reduce the population down to 50-75% of it's current levels, we could enjoy many things that are currently unsustainable.

Interesting. Is this study also correlated to relative effort in targeting affected species? That could be related to resiliency as well, after all, if the smaller species had a higher rebound rate but also much higher effort directed towards them, then these results could be indicative of that.

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your last statement, your post ignores how destructive fish farms are to the oceans.

Not entirely true. They're locally destructive due to the high density of fish without sufficient ability to remove wastes, but that's poor planning, not a direct inditement of fish farming as a whole. Assuming sufficient planning for the increased nitrate load, and assuming non-fish-based-feeds, it could be a good net bonus to production without much harmful effects.

Hey I don't eat fish so I am not part of the this problem. Really it is interesting in a way this reminds me of the Bison hunting industry in the US. The reason that the Bison was hunted was not to starve the Native Americans but was for the hide. Bison leather made the best belts for running the machinery of the industrial revolution. Instead of actually farming them we just hunted them because they where "free" and there where so many of them.Seems much like what is happening now with fishing.

More and more often, I suspect we should be looking at human population reduction, but I doubt that will ever happen either.

It will happen as a natural consequence of raising the global standard of living. Middle class and higher people don't want to put the rest of their life on hold for innumerable kids. In fact, it's pretty likely that there will be a "population crash" crisis in 100 years or less, because raising kids is a pain in the ass, and there are a lot more fun things to do. Just look at Japan, the best example of a modern country that's completely xenophobic and resists almost all immigration. Their population is on course for a huge crash, right now. Even the US population would be stagnant if it weren't for immigrants.

I fear that we lack the political or economic will to make significant changes before it's too late.

I know that we lack the political or economic will to make significant changes before it's too late. FTFY.

neil5280 wrote:

If we reduce our population, we'll have trouble colonizing space.

If we don't reduce our population and figure out how to live sustainably on this planet without using it up, we're just going to do the same thing on other planets. We'll move to a new planet, breed up a few billion people in the span of a century or two, and destroy the ecosystem of the entire planet in about two or three hundred years.

If we don't reduce our population and figure out how to live sustainably on this planet without using it up, we're just going to do the same thing on other planets. We'll move to a new planet, breed up a few billion people in the span of a century or two, and destroy the ecosystem of the entire planet in about two or three hundred years.

Guess what once we are gone the earth will rebuild it self. We need to stop supporting the weak. Sorry if this sounds bad but if we let the poor starve this will help. All of you on the far left want to euthanize... who do you think will be the victims? You think Bill Gates is going to volenteer? If you want to control population then control Entitlements. How many less poor would there be to feed if we did not reward the lazy for having unprotected sex? How much less would healthcare cost if doctors could refuse to treat those who could not pay and were more likely to sue to try and get rich?

TomaZ wrote:

HaBeing able to move to a new planet before we go extinct as a species because of our greed (political, economical, gastronomical, personal) sounds like a pipe dream to me.

Greed is the natural state. You do not see lions and tigers inviting in lesser predators or rivals to share in their kills. Greed keeps things moving forward and culls the weak.

I think we're seeing the effects of pollution in the ocean, in particular, plastics pollution. They've been warning us for years that we cannot continue to dump garbage and sewage into the oceans, but most countries don't care, even developed nations like mine - Canada.

Cut entitlement programs, ok so when they use a gun to take what you have because theyre starving you wont see it coming? Social security works both ways, it keeps your businesses getting molotov cocktails as well as them fed. How about trim the programs instead. People that cheat the system to be lazy will find something else to cheat/steal if they need to, its more a societal problem of their perspective on how to make a living than a loophole in benefits although those are fun targets.

If we don't find a way to reduce our population to sustainable levels, we may never see the day on an other planet. I understand you concern though, we may have a hard time filling up those Generation Ships, because if everyone can have a good time on Earth, than why would they risk going on a one-way journey... But I still think, that first we have to get to that point, and we won't with this many people on this planet. :(

Cut entitlement programs, ok so when they use a gun to take what you have because theyre starving you wont see it coming? Social security works both ways, it keeps your businesses getting molotov cocktails as well as them fed. How about trim the programs instead. People that cheat the system to be lazy will find something else to cheat/steal if they need to, its more a societal problem of their perspective on how to make a living than a loophole in benefits although those are fun targets.

Actually cut it all... Cut the entitlements and the big business subsidies. Everything from eliminating the minimum wage to corporate loop holes and tax breaks. I agree that it is a societal problem that has created the entitled. If you make it easier to work and come by it honestly than to live off of the system then people will work and be productive. If you make it easier to continue to live off of the system than to work and be productive, then people will just continue to live off of the system.

If we don't find a way to reduce our population to sustainable levels, we may never see the day on an other planet. I understand you concern though, we may have a hard time filling up those Generation Ships, because if everyone can have a good time on Earth, than why would they risk going on a one-way journey... But I still think, that first we have to get to that point, and we won't with this many people on this planet.

If we don't find a way to reduce our population to sustainable levels, we may never see the day on an other planet. I understand you concern though, we may have a hard time filling up those Generation Ships, because if everyone can have a good time on Earth, than why would they risk going on a one-way journey... But I still think, that first we have to get to that point, and we won't with this many people on this planet.

So who should we cull? How do we choose who lives or dies?

How do we cull? We're talking about people here, not fucking cattle.

What Xavin said seems to be the prevailing opinion of most of the studies I've read.

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your last statement, your post ignores how destructive fish farms are to the oceans.

Not entirely true. They're locally destructive due to the high density of fish without sufficient ability to remove wastes, but that's poor planning, not a direct inditement of fish farming as a whole. Assuming sufficient planning for the increased nitrate load, and assuming non-fish-based-feeds, it could be a good net bonus to production without much harmful effects.

Assuming non-fish based feeds is and assumption you can't make. I did research in the 80s that showed very clearly that, surprise surprise, fish grew fastest (in a closed aquaculture system) eating a diet of other fish. Considerably faster than any other diet.

Secondly, that soya you might hope to use is wanted for biofuel, at a rate of about 250kg per car fuel tank full, and for food. And many species will simply reject as unpalatable: fish will happily starve themselves rather than eat something they don't like. You might get tilapia to eat it as they are omnivorous.

Then fast air freight for perishable food is soon going to become an expense too far. You can get the soya to tilapia but not the tilapia to market.

And the Brazilians are legislating as I write to give the Amazon to those who wish to burn it up, despite 2010s drought warning them of the consequences... to that soya isn't going to remain cheap for much longer than the 4 years is takes for Amazonian soils to become infertile, low grade pasture. And, if the rains fail due to that great plain heating up then there's a reasonable chance of desertification.

Inorganic fertilizers aren't going to solve the soil degradation problem (aside from rainfall issues) because the Brazilian farmers I talk to are already balking at their current price... and though growing water hyacinths in the sewage Brazilians like to turn their rivers and coastal seas into would offer some way to produce organic fertilizer it the cost of taking a heavy organic fertilizer to spread, far from the cities where the sewage is available is becoming ever more commercially inviable... due to fuel and asphalting costs.

Finally, on the comment: "How do we cull? We're talking about people here, not fucking cattle."

Don't worry, if you can face the issue nature will take care of it for you... but it won't be pretty.

The sustainable level of human population reached will be set but the 'most limiting essential resource'. In Tudor England they ran out of oak. Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and James I all decreed greater planting of oaks and a ban on cutting them for firewood. The population at the time was 2 million. Now it's around 65 million.

What Xavin said seems to be the prevailing opinion of most of the studies I've read.

So how do we reduce the population with out "Culling the masses"?With a planet that can sustainably support ~1-2 billion at most,(I have seen reports that put the number at 200-500m) and a current population of ~7.5 billion, what other way is there to get the population down to a sustainable level with out culling.

Euthaniasia is just a nice way of saying we are going to kill you for the greater good... culling is putting down a cow for the good of the herd. I do not see any word possibly that would be more apt for what is being proposed.

We need to take care of our planet. I agree. I do not neccessarily think that turning our current food into fuel is the solution. I do not think that supporting social programs by taxing fossil fuels will do any thing to help it either. It sickens me to think that there are people who are seriously arguing that we need to reduce population like its nothing more than a quick trip to the showers at Aushwitz. We know how those showers end but are upset by someone actually talking about it?

sebmel wrote:

Don't worry, if you can face the issue nature will take care of it for you... but it won't be pretty.

I seem to remember a story about a British brewery that sold their sludge byproduct to a ragworm (I think) farm. The ragworms were particularly happy with this byproduct and grew suitably big and juicy, and were then sold onto a fish farm. That is the sort of good wholesome story I like. Finding more uses for beer.

Don't worry, if you can face the issue nature will take care of it for you... but it won't be pretty.

By the time nature takes care of it, it will be too late for us.

That is indeed a possible outcome. We know we are a culture/technology dependent species and that makes us vulnerable to catastrophic change. We also know that studies of our narrow genetic diversity suggest at least two severe, evolutionarily recent, bottlenecks. Dates vary: 60,000 years ago (mitochondrial Eve) and 120,000 years ago (y-chromosome Adam) is one rough guess.

My own view is that some pockets of humanity will survive the coming crash in places where obvious tension will not occur and local technology remain intact... perhaps Laplanders... perhaps Inuit... perhaps even New Zealanders will manage to fend off mass immigration. Once oil becomes expensive even the interior of Brazil might be remote enough... perhaps the Pantanal, if Brazil doesn't get round to draining it before social tensions rocket... that's leads to the horrible thought that the Moonies may inherit the Earth! (They've bought a vast tract there).

Speculating further:

The collapse of cities will be first: governments will become Fascist and soon militarise. Xenophobia is going to reappear in the countries not sufficiently mixed race to avoid it (Japan, Russia, Sweden).

The Arabs will riot and run northwest... which won't please the Greeks, Spanish and Italians. Many countries in the Arabian peninsular import 90% of their food. As it becomes expensive producers will halt exports... as Russia and Argentina did last year (wheat and beef). City dwellers will not have the technology, nor wild food stocks, to survive.

A landed mafia with aristocratic pretensions will try to gain control... with various gods on 'their side'.

The trigger is likely to be collapsing wild fish stocks... that's a heck of a lot of protein and DHA to suddenly replace.

If I had to guess the essential resource that might allow for survival it would be some pocket of mussels... filter feeders... easy to gather.

If we don't reduce our population and figure out how to live sustainably on this planet without using it up, we're just going to do the same thing on other planets. We'll move to a new planet, breed up a few billion people in the span of a century or two, and destroy the ecosystem of the entire planet in about two or three hundred years.

Guess what once we are gone the earth will rebuild it self. We need to stop supporting the weak. Sorry if this sounds bad but if we let the poor starve this will help. All of you on the far left want to euthanize... who do you think will be the victims? You think Bill Gates is going to volenteer? If you want to control population then control Entitlements. How many less poor would there be to feed if we did not reward the lazy for having unprotected sex? How much less would healthcare cost if doctors could refuse to treat those who could not pay and were more likely to sue to try and get rich?

TomaZ wrote:

HaBeing able to move to a new planet before we go extinct as a species because of our greed (political, economical, gastronomical, personal) sounds like a pipe dream to me.

Greed is the natural state. You do not see lions and tigers inviting in lesser predators or rivals to share in their kills. Greed keeps things moving forward and culls the weak.

lol bc the fat bald corporate executives, with painted fingernails are strong? im not exactly sure what point your trying to make. in our society fitness has very little to do with success, regarding procreation anyway. natural selection has been taking a random walk for thousands of years. if anything the poorest, and weakest of our species are the most prolific breeders. watch idiocracy, its not that far from the truth.

A really interesting thing to wonder is: what will happen to religion?

After Easter Islanders had cut down the last trees (boat building, farming, wind erosion, rolling sculptures to the coast), and could no longer build boats to fish or search for new islands, they stopped their ancestor worship and started a bird cult. They must have wished they could fly away from the tribal wars that ensued their isolated, wind-swept, ecological nightmare.

What happens to current beliefs that directly encourage our unfolding exponential population growth catastrophe?

I don't mean to offend but I have a funny image of rednecks praying to giant prophylactics.

If we don't find a way to reduce our population to sustainable levels, we may never see the day on an other planet. I understand you concern though, we may have a hard time filling up those Generation Ships, because if everyone can have a good time on Earth, than why would they risk going on a one-way journey... But I still think, that first we have to get to that point, and we won't with this many people on this planet.

So far as I can tell, we've only done better science and done more amazing things as the population has increased. I'll hold onto hope.

lol bc the fat bald corporate executives, with painted fingernails are strong? im not exactly sure what point your trying to make. in our society fitness has very little to do with success, regarding procreation anyway. natural selection has been taking a random walk for thousands of years. if anything the poorest, and weakest of our species are the most prolific breeders. watch idiocracy, its not that far from the truth.

I have seen very few fat corporate exexutives in recent times. As much as we all enjoy the stereotype of the lazy fatass boss hogg type ruling his universe from his sheltered and pampered life, that just doesnt mesh with reality. Most successful executives are hard working, intelligent and driven people.The old money fat cats are a shrinking crowd. Most of them spend little time with their families as they are too busy being successful. After all they are looking after the prosperity of everyone working for them. And unlike the government they actually want the people under them to succeed because just as failure rolls downhill success floats up.

As for my point. If left to the government to make the chioce who dies then it will not be those fat cats you are talking about. And its not going to be the ones who work and pay tax money that supports them. It will be those people whom they say they provide for but in truth keep them undereducated, barely sustained, and unable to move up or they yank the rug out from underthem. The poor. The lowest cast whom those in power love because they provide them pennies and they let them take dollars. Those who believe in change because those in power that provide for them said it happened even when they can plainly see it has not.

Ohh and when that time comes the scientists will be the most dangerous and will likely get the first showers.

Imagine if they weren't consuming fish, how many people would be starving. They don't all have the kind of farmland we are lucky enough to have in the US.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but it should be noted that a large portion of the protein in the farmed cow diet here in the US comes from fish meal added to the corn-based feed they are given. Not all of fish farmed goes to a human plate, and the US certainly isn't short on the fish product it consumes in total.